Subject: Ackanomic Digest V1 #267
From: [email-masked] (Ackanomic Digest)
To: ackanomic-digest

Ackanomic Digest      Sunday, September 29 1996      Volume 01 : Number 267

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 00:58:28 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Financial

I insist on a copy of the Hot Tips Newsletter, which I have
paid for, or my A$30 back.

Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 96 1:21:18 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Acka : Financial

I transfer A$10 to Techno
I transfer A$10 to Bash
I transfer A$10 to Uncle Sam
I transfer A$10 to IdiotBoy

Wayne

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 01:25:24 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Official

I am resigning as Assistant to the Financier.  The workload is simply
too much for me at this time.

Perhaps someone who has no other functional duties can volunteer to
help ThinMan out.

Malenkai
ex-AttF

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 10:47:05 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: acka:official

Obeserver Glen Plam has left Ackanomic

Niccolo Flychuck

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 96 11:40:00 PDT
From: Shlomi Bernthal <[email-masked]>
Subject: Quitting

Hi,

Since there is too much mail involved in this game, I would like to quit.
Please remove me from your mailing list.

Thanks,
skinny

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 01:44:20 -0900
From: [email-masked] (Phil Ackley)
Subject: Acka: Presidential 

Ackanomians,

As I sit here, pondering possible new proposals that would increase the
level of fun available to all the players of Ackanomic, I am startled by a
thought that flashes across my mind -"Why Bother?".  For, if the members of
the Underworld party are true to their threat, every proposal I submit will
be voted down by them.

Now, they have certainly proven that they have the power to do that, a fact
which I believe few of us doubted even before their so called "strike".
However, having the power to take an action and being able to justify that
action are two entirely different things.  The Church of the Markovian
Dream, or any other large organization (real or imaginary), could have
attempted the same stunt.  As a matter of fact, the church has worked as a
unit to block certain proposals.  That action however could be considered
"justifiable".  We acted in accordance with our Dogma to block certain
proposals which we felt would be harmful to the game as a whole.

By contrast, the Underworld party acted as a unit to block ALL proposals -
and for what?  Their petty goal was financial gain for themselves.  This
action was not a strike, as they have stated in their propaganda.  Rather,
it was tantamount to running a protection racket.  "Pay us, or we'll kick
your ass!" is what they were really saying.

And now, the "strike" has been called off, but the extortion continues.
Underworld's Party Boss has come out and told us all that if we do not vote
YES on P1289 (which would pay off underworld members) they will will vote
as a unit against every player who opposed them.

I, for one, am going to vote NO on P1289 - and I urge *all of you*
(including the Underworld members) to do the same.  Such blatent extortion
has no place in this game.  The actions of the Underworld party should not
be humored or rewarded.  Indeed, if anything, I would say it should be
punished.

That being said, I wish to state publically that I believe (at least I
hope) that the actions of the Underworld Party were intended by their
initiators to provide a fun situation for the players of our great game.
However, any fun that the players of Ackanomic would have gained from it
has long since evaporated.  I have had *several* players, both new and old,
tell me that they plan on leaving the game of this situation continues.
These players are not having fun. To those players I can only say to have
patience.  With any luck, this situation will be over soon, and we can all
once again participate in the fun that is Ackanomic.  As I see it,
Ackanomic exists solely to amuse those who play it and will quickly
dissolve when the amusement it provides is removed.

If that happens, I shall leave the game with you. Perhaps then we could
work together to form a new, happy nomic.

We have built something great here, greater than any other nomic currently
existing, in my opinion, and I would hate to see it destroyed over such
petty politics.  That is why I am asking the members of the Underworld
Party to immediatly cease and decist all extortionary actions.  and retract
P1289.  If the market for the services they provide is not great enough to
support their existance without resorting to force than perhaps they ought
to seek out a new market niche.  If an agreement can not be reached on this
issue, I fear we would have to impose a solution similar to "Malenkai's
Club" - and if the situation is dire enough I would not hesitate to support
such a solution.

However, here is to hoping that the situation can be resolved peacefully,
retaining the fun of ackanomic for all it's players Underworld and
Overworld alike.

Long Live Ackanomic!

snowgod
president

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 02:00:52 -0800 (AKDT)
From: "Phillip R. Ackley" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Quitting

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Shlomi Bernthal wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> Since there is too much mail involved in this game, I would like to quit.
> Please remove me from your mailing list.
> 
> Thanks,
> skinny

Skinny,

Sorry to see you go.  Perhaps when you have more time for email you can 
rejoin us!  In any event, good luck with whatever life offers you.

shalom,
snowgod

> 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 08:18:54 EDT 
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Acka: Re: CFJ 293

On Saturday 28 Sep 96,  Malenkai wrote:

>stuff...
>I just want to clear up some potential confusion from these comments.
>P 1211 *was* valid and did exist, the *rule change* it described,
however,
>was judged to be invalid.

>This is a fine, but potentially important distinction. 

This is one of the feew times I find myself at complete odds with
Malenkai.  Rules 104 and 491 are explicit on what a valid proposal is, 
and its affect.   R104 states that a Proposal is a rule change,  R491
states that a rule change must repeal an exiisting rule to be valid. 
R104 states that an unvalid rule change is removed and not considered
either Accepted nor Rejected (Not to have existed).

BTW,  if upheld,  this will mean some scoring changes,  since none of the
votes or the passing bonus will have counted.

I do,  however,  agree with Malenkai about the "Scroll of Money" 
Proposal.  By R104,  if it had been judged Valid,  it would have made a
valid Rule.

Habeous Corpus

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 09:11:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: financial

On Sat, 28 Sep 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> I am transferring 15 A$ to IdiotBoy, assuming his acceptance.
> 
> Would the Financier please take note.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 
Accepted.

- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 96 1:44:46 EDT 
From: [email-masked] ()
Subject: Ackanomic: Proposal 1292

Proposal 1292 - Sun Sep 29 01:44:46 EDT 1996
Proposal Bribing
Wayne  (Wayne Sheppard)

{{ Each Player who paid the Treasury A$100 to buy an extra vote on
this proposal shall have A$300 paid to them from the Treasury.  }}

{{[ Note this doesn't discriminate based on the way players vote,
so it is no in violation on 793.  So spend A$100 and make A$300! ]}}

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 10:11:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: *ping*

Today is Sunday, the 29th day of September, in the Year of Our Lord 
1996, and the Machine That Goes *ping* Has Gone *ping* today.  Since I 
have been scholar, the Machine has gone *ping* 3 times.

Guy Fawkes
Scholar of *ping*

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 11:23:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financial

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Malenkai wrote:

> I insist on a copy of the Hot Tips Newsletter, which I have
> paid for, or my A$30 back.
> 
> Malenkai
> 
Oddly enough today is the day the Hot TIps newletter comes out.  So you
shouldn't have to wait too much longer.  However the editor has decided to
CANCEL your subscription for harrassing the customer service line operators,
so I hereby return your A$30.

IB
- -- IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of
hammers. [email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 10:29:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Financier

> record the transaction between myself and mohammed, wherein Ihe traded 25 
> pfsnowgod for 25 pfmohammed?
	Perhaps there did not appeart to be sufficient confirmation of this 
deal.  I confirm the trade.

- --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 11:39:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: The UW strike and its consequences

It certainly was MY intent to provide greater fun in the game, playing
within rules (all of which existed before I joined).  Now people seem afraid
to face the monster THEY have created.  Don't blame ME because YOU wrote a
ruleset which allows for abuse.  It never pays to depend upon the kindness
of strangers.  Capitalism has succeeded becuase it depends on the inherent
greed of man.  Socialism has failed because it depends on the inherent
goodness of man.

Suppose we had not announced our strike.  This would have been much more
detremental to the game.  We gave you fair warning.  There was NO discussion
to the public forum of how to resolve this, until AFTER the first set of
results had been played out.  As far as I have been able to determine, we
never intended to carry on our strike for more than a few proposals.  BUT, I
will say that I was sincerely peeved with the singling out of the UW.  No
one made any attempt to fix the ruleset, rather they decided to attack one
group.   I had expected more, frankly.  I am disappointed.

The UW has never kept its agenda secret, for that we are penalized in the
eyes of all the self-reighteous over-worlders.  Well, I believe from now on,
the UW will take action to support our agenda, without giving others the
insight into our plans which would allow them to work with us, rather than
against us.

IB
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 10:57:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mohammed <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Malenkai and Mohammed

> I am also offering (just to make it official) a trade with mohammed... 20
> PFsnowgod for 20 PFmohammed.
	Er, if the previous trade has already been noted, I decline this 
one; if the previous trade fizzled or was found not to have happened, 
then I accept.
	Sorry, I hate those conditional game actions too, but it's the 
quickest way through this...

- --Mohammed

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 12:22:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: the HTN

Copies of vol 1 issue 4 have been mailed to all subscribers.  Talk to
IdiotBoy about buying this weeks issue for only A$8.  (20% off the cover
price)

IB
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 09:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The UW strike and its consequences

> Suppose we had not announced our strike.  This would have been much
> more detremental to the game.  We gave you fair warning.  There was
> NO discussion to the public forum of how to resolve this, until
> AFTER the first set of results had been played out.  As far as I
> have been able to determine, we never intended to carry on our
> strike for more than a few proposals.  BUT, I will say that I was
> sincerely peeved with the singling out of the UW.  No one made any
> attempt to fix the ruleset, rather they decided to attack one group.
> I had expected more, frankly.  I am disappointed.

Well, actually there was a bit of discussion. Nobody, myself included,
could come up with a way to "fix" the rules that didn't violate the
spirit of the game (e.g., rescinding non-player votes, rules that
attempt to legislate morality).

What makes a strike different from a bunch of people voting the same
after participating in a group discussion? You can't write rules that
address the *reason* someone chooses how to vote. Hey, if you've got
any ideas, I for one am all ears.

b

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 11:18:11 -0600
From: Uncle Sam <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: CFJ 300 (Uncle Sam) 

I accept and will announce my verdict in 3 days.

At 02:57 AM 9/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>tinan declined.
>Malenkai was chosen and declined, citing coi.
>
>Uncle Sam has been chosen, and has 3 days to accept/decline.
>
>Clerk of the Courts
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Call For Judgement 300
>  Subject: Going to Gaol
>Initiator: Brinjal
>    Judge: this is not a name (declined)
>2nd Judge: Malenkai (declined)
>3rd Judge: Uncle Sam (selected Sep 28, 1996, 03:01h EDT)
>Judgement:
>
>Statement:
>
>IdiotBoy went to Gaol on Thursday September 26th.
>
>Brinjal's Reasoning:
>
>There is a three day grace period from time of sentence to actual
>Gaoling of offenders. IdiotBoy was in the Cow Town Hotel at the
>moment his three days elapsed. Shortly after this he left the Cow Town
>Hotel and I, as Gaoler, attempted to put IdiotBoy behind bars.
>Rule 710 "Criminal Justice", describes the process of Gaoling
>criminals, and it is the interpretation of this rule which the judge
>must consider.
>
>

Uncle Sam

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 12:35:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: nomicbot

#vote 1281 p
#current

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 13:41:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The UW strike and its consequences

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Brian Raiter wrote:

> Well, actually there was a bit of discussion. Nobody, myself included,
> could come up with a way to "fix" the rules that didn't violate the
> spirit of the game (e.g., rescinding non-player votes, rules that
> attempt to legislate morality).
> 
I apologize if I mistakenly stated that there was no discussion.  I
certainly at the time thought it was odd that our announcement went largely
ignored.  I don't see how disenfranchising a group of players doesn't
violate the spirit of the game.  We have built a system which allows the
will of a minority to subjugate the will of the majority.  THAT is the
problem.  Not the members of the UW at 11:02am on 9-25-96.

> What makes a strike different from a bunch of people voting the same
> after participating in a group discussion? You can't write rules that
> address the *reason* someone chooses how to vote. Hey, if you've got
> any ideas, I for one am all ears.
> 
> b
> 
There is not much difference.  There is nothing which suggests that a player
should vote any other way than exactly as he chooses after weighing costs
and benefits.  In my case, I weighed the relative values and chose to vote
with my party, in support of our strike.  Completely within the rules.  Not
even remotely close to loophole surfing, or twisting the meaning of the
rules to achieve some result.  The rules which allowed us to pull off our
strike are well documented, but frankly not in the best interests of the
game.  The rule to strip us of our vote isn't either.  In its announcement
was a threat much more ominous than in our strike.  The author threateneed
us for our voting patterns.

IB
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 12:43:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: Guy Fawkes <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: nomicbot

Well, I guess everyone knows MY current political feelings.

Guy Fawkes

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> #vote 1281 p
> #current
> 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 13:45:07 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Retraction

I am retracting P 1281.

I ask that Wayne retract P 1289 so we can put this crap behind us
and move on.

Malenkai

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 13:04:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Joseph W. DeVincentis" <devjoe>
Subject: Re: Acka: Re: CFJ 293

Habeous Corpus wrote:
> On Saturday 28 Sep 96,  Malenkai wrote:
> >P 1211 *was* valid and did exist, the *rule change* it described,
> >however, was judged to be invalid.
> 
> This is one of the feew times I find myself at complete odds with
> Malenkai.  Rules 104 and 491 are explicit on what a valid proposal is, 
> and its affect.   R104 states that a Proposal is a rule change,  R491
> states that a rule change must repeal an exiisting rule to be valid. 
> R104 states that an unvalid rule change is removed and not considered
> either Accepted nor Rejected (Not to have existed).

Rule 104 says no such thing, and I don't believe it ever has.  In the early
days of the game, proposed rule change was a synonym for proposal, but
this was removed back when multiple-rule-change proposals were first
allowed.

Rule 104/3 (Immutable)
Adopting Proposals

      All proposals made in the proper way shall be voted on, unless they
are retracted, nullified, or deemed invalid in accordance with the Rules.
In these cases, they are removed from consideration, and are considered
to be neither accepted or rejected.

      When a proposal's prescribed voting period ends, or all players have
cast a vote on a proposal, then that proposal is accepted if a quorum has
been achieved and the required number of YES votes were cast on the
proposal.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 15:18:29 +0000
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Acka : Financial

> Reply-to:      [email-masked]
> From:          [email-masked] ()
> To:            ackanomic
> Subject:       Acka : Financial
> Date:          Sun, 29 Sep 96 1:21:18 EDT

> 
> I transfer A$10 to Techno
> I transfer A$10 to Bash
> I transfer A$10 to Uncle Sam
> I transfer A$10 to IdiotBoy
> 
> Wayne
> 
> 
I ack.

Techno
"Don't learn the tricks of the trade, learn the trade."

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 16:27:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka : Financial

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996 [email-masked] wrote:

> > Reply-to:      [email-masked]
> > From:          [email-masked] ()
> > To:            ackanomic
> > Subject:       Acka : Financial
> > Date:          Sun, 29 Sep 96 1:21:18 EDT
> 
> > 
> > I transfer A$10 to Techno
> > I transfer A$10 to Bash
> > I transfer A$10 to Uncle Sam
> > I transfer A$10 to IdiotBoy
> > 
> > Wayne
> > 
> > 
> I ack.
> 
> Techno
> "Don't learn the tricks of the trade, learn the trade."
> 
Oh yeah, me too.

IB
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 16:56:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: New Bribing World Order

On Sat, 28 Sep 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:

> Strikes aren't broken by force.  The use of escalating force will only
> result in the collapse of the game, or alienation of some group of
> players from the game, or a split of the game into two separate games.
> 
I'm glad someone agrees with me.

<SNIP of some detail>
> If a proposal adds, changes, or repeals rules that generate effects
> or cause some entity to generate effects (including but not limited
> to score changes) based on the way players vote, then those rules
> generate no effects based on the way players vote on that particular
> proposal.  This takes precedence over all mutable rules which 
> generate effects based on the way players vote on proposals.
> 
> An exception to all of the above is that a proposal may include a
> provision which transfers tradeable entities from the author of
> the proposal to players who voted YES on the proposal.  These need
> not be equal for all such players. [I.e., extra bribes can be given
> to players who buy extra votes or whose parties generate unity
> votes.]
> 
My only concern with this is as follows:

Player A makes a proposal which indicates a Payoff to all the members of
(None Yet) if they vote YES on the proposal.  The players of (None Yet) in
good faith cast their votes of YES on the proposal, expecting such payment.
If the proposal FAILS, they have no recourse to recieve their bribe.  

Is it possible to write Proposals which have effects upon their failure?
That'd make for some wackiness, eh, kids?

IB
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 17:00:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: IdiotBoy <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: nomicbot

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:

> 
> Well, I guess everyone knows MY current political feelings.
> 
> Guy Fawkes
> 
> On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Guy Fawkes wrote:
> 
> > #vote 1281 p
> > #current
> > 
> 
I dunno, I'm still calling it a clever political ploy.

Naturally suspicious-
IB
- --
IdiotBoy, as always, dumber than a box of hammers.
[email-masked]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 23:24:55 +0200 (EET)
From: Uri Bruck <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: UW Strikes.

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, IdiotBoy wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Sep 1996, Joseph W. DeVincentis wrote:
> 
> > Strikes aren't broken by force.  The use of escalating force will only
> > result in the collapse of the game, or alienation of some group of
> > players from the game, or a split of the game into two separate games.
> > 
> I'm glad someone agrees with me.
> 
You used that argument to argue that UW has demonstrated a legal means by
which a minority could force its will upon the game. By the same token,
P1281 was a counter demonstration that the oppressed majority can abd will
fight back.  Had that rule not been retracted, it had a very good chance
of passing, and your demonstration would have failed.

Niccolo Flychuck

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 22:27:36 +0000
From: Bascule <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Vacation

Up and running! I'm BACK!

Bascule

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 17:24:46 -0400
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: The UW strike and its consequences

snowgod did a commendable job in his recent message attempting to guide
Acka away from what is currently threatening it.  While I endorse that
post 100%, I should like to add some thoughts of my own, in general,
and in response to comments surrounding proposal 1281, as at least
one player seemed threatened, or offended, by it.  That was never its
intent.

While I personally find IdiotBoy's latest response bordering on the
beginning of a flame war, I do not wish to go down that road.  I will
attempt to stick to the facts, and ask any so inclined to do the same,
because I dislike flame wars, and really want to make the game fun again.

IdiotBoy wrote:
 
> It certainly was MY intent to provide greater fun in the game, playing
> within rules (all of which existed before I joined).

I think it is clear that this was a miscalulation.  I made a similar
miscalculation when I issued AOJ 101.  AOJ 101 was issued in accordance
with the rules then in effect, and its attempt was to save the game from
what I perceived was a nomic crash, and to explore an interesting
situation in the rules, and to provide fun.  I did provide enjoyment
for some, but alienated some as well.  I still remember some of the
hate mail.  There are many differences between this situation and AOJ
101, but the salient similarity is that just because the rules allow
an action, that action is not necessarity justified, and people can and
do make errors in judgement when persuing such actions.  More examples
on this later.

In this case, at least 9 people have definitively stated, or strongly
indicated, either privately, or in other forums, that the UW strike
was "in poor taste", or "a violation of the social contract we implictly
agree to when we join a game" or language with a similar gist.  This
cannot be legislated, no matter how hard you try.  That is why we
politely asked you to stop, without getting into a flame war.  While
we appreciate that you did stop, some people do not feel P 1289 was a
good faith attempt to clean this matter up.

> Don't blame ME because YOU wrote a ruleset which allows for abuse.

I do not believe anyone is blaming you, Matt.  The fact of the matter is
that you cannot write a ruleset which will be free from abuse.

For example, there is no limit to the number of proposals that may be
submitted (a limit could be imposed).  There is no limit to the number
of CFJs that can be submitted (a limit could be imposed).  There is no
limit to the number of mail messages that may be sent to the public 
forum (a limit could be imposed).  There is no limit to the quantity of
offensive language permitted in a message (the politeness moon penalty
could be raised to 20000 points).  There is no limit to the length of
a proposal or CFJ (limits could be imposed).  There is no limit to the
number and nature of TCP/IP messages that may be sent to wilma (this
could all be legislated).  There is no limits on mail-bombing a particular
player you are at odds with (duels is a better solution). etc etc etc.

The point is, I believe you cannot legislate spirit of the game.  I think
the attitude of Acka has been to constructively develop the game in a
fun direction, rather than thicken the ruleset and spend time writing
the above legislation.  Remember, many of the players here are either
full-time students, or have full-time jobs, and play nomic as a hobby,
a *game*.  Given limited time, many people would prefer to develop and
have fun than attempt the above legislation.

Again, I do not believe you can legislate good taste.  I will share with
you my attempt to do so, however, which has been a good faith attempt
to acknowledge this issue, without spending alot of valuable time on 
it.

Starting with R 1023, I began adding the phrase "players are permitted to
sneer at this behaviour" to cover situations where the rules would allow
a certain action, but such action would be contrary to the spirit of
the rule.  It seemed like a more fun way to handle it.  I do not advocate
putting this in every rule, I just hope the gist is gotten.

> Capitalism has succeeded becuase it depends on the inherent greed of
> man.  Socialism has failed because it depends on the inherent
> goodness of man.

First of all, you have made this statement without associating objective,
or subjective, measurement criteria with the terms "succeeded" or
"failed".  I will let that pass, but will discuss the capitalism of this
situation.  (If you are interested in capitalism, BTW, I recommend the
non-fiction of Ayn Rand, I can give you some references if you wish).

First, the messgae calling the strike, in full:
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underworld was formed to have an influence on all aspects of Ackanomic.
We thought that a group of united players should have a louder voice than
that of a single player.  We've made it clear that our votes can by bought
if the price is right.  So far only a few players have taken advantage of
our offer (you know who you are).  But I feel that our business could be
expanded much more.

After consulting with IdiotBoy's financial wizards, we realized that
people don't pay for something when they can get it for free.  So the
only way to get people to pay for our services is to not give it away.

Therefore, we have decided to vote against EVERY proposal that is not
under our services.  If you want to have your proposal pass, please
contact me or any other member of Underworld about doing business.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What this says is that the Underworld will vote against every proposal
for which there is no bribe.  It does not specify a time limit.  The
rate I bribed Underworld for on Proposal 1253 was A$48.  I have authored
170 proposals since this game began.  At even *half* that rate, it would
cost over A$4000, or 10 times the average player balance.  Over the life
of those 170 proposals, I have accumulated about A$1500.  Since all new
revenue from proposal writing would go to the UW, it seems that after 
about 62 proposals, I would be broke and not able to afford the bribes
(that assumes 1/2 the going rate, or A$24).  The math is also degenerative
at 1/4 the going rate, but not quite as bad.  At 1/8 the going rate, or
A$6 per proposal, UW members are only making A$1 per proposal!  The
economics works against *them* in that case, they are better off attempting
to scoreboard vote, and make A$3 per proposal!

Furthermore, during the strike, which was worded as *EVERY* proposal,
indicating that it would continue as long as bribes were not being
paid, all of us were making A$3 per proposal whilst the Underworld was
making nothing!  Thus, either way, the economics were poorly thought
out.  On top of that, even though I bribed the Underworld on P 1253, and
did business with the Underworld on P 1243 and a few others, they still
struck all of my other proposals!  In light of the above analysis, that
is simply, and obviously, not good business, as well as in bad taste.

I was playing ball and going along with the bribery.  It *could have been
fun*, and good for the game, and if done right, can be.  Given the
above, however, you were not promoting the best interest of the game,
or you made analyitical errors.

Now, a more important aspect of capitalism, and if you call yourself a
capitalist, you should see this situation you have created as abhorrant,
and it is this that I most strongly object to:

You are taxing effort.  The harder someone works for the good of the game,
the more tax *they* must pay.  I work very hard for this game and have
authored 100 rule changes.  I like to think that others have enjoyed
the fruits of that hard work, as I have enjoyed the work of others.  Under
this scheme, however, the harder you work for the good of the game and
for your, and others enjoyment, the more you must pay!  You seem to be
pro capitalism, perhaps well read in the economics of capitalism.   I
hope you can see the gist here, and how such a tax would be destructive
to the game.  You are discouraguing effort, and fun.  Its like putting
a tax of A$1 on the Web-Harfer every time he adds a proposal to the
web page, or a tax on every CFJ the CotC packages up, or charging me 
A$10 for taking the effort to, on my own time, but up that CotC page
which makes the game better for people.

Do not tax effort.  Do not discourage development of the game.  What 
I will be forced to do is put all my rule changes in one gigantic proposal
of 20 sub-proposals.  Legal by the rules, but out of the spirit.  qv
previous argument.
     
This is what offended me most about the strike.  Slapping the people who
work the hardest for the game, the hardest.
 
> Suppose we had not announced our strike.  This would have been much more
> detremental to the game.

The fact that an action is "less detrimental" does not do your argument
justice.  I am willing to accept that it was an error of judgement, and
drop it.

> We gave you fair warning.  There was NO discussion
> to the public forum of how to resolve this, until AFTER the first set of
> results had been played out.

First of all, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and even bribed
you on one proposal.  It was only after the results that it was clear
how tasteless it was, and how poor the economics were.  I honestly
expected that if you played ball on one or 2, the others would not be
struck.  I'm not sure why I thought that, I just did.  Also, do you want
us to judge something and start a flame war before it is played out?

> As far as I have been able to determine, we
> never intended to carry on our strike for more than a few proposals.

Please read the memo, posted above, that announced the strike.  It said
"EVERY" proposal.  It did not specify any temporal information.  And you
struck more than a few proposals before a word was said.

> BUT,  will say that I was sincerely peeved with the singling out of the
> UW.

You singled out the non-UW.  You did not strike your own proposals.  A
better way to put it would have been to single out all those who struck.
Harder to word.  Your action disenfranchised the rest of the players.
That was all the point of P 1281 was.  I apologize if P 1281 personally
threatened or offended you, but as you like to point out, it was well
within the rules to submit, and even pass, such a proposal.  Doesn't feel
the same when the shoe is on the other foot, does it?  

> No one made any attempt to fix the ruleset, rather they decided to
> attack one group.   I had expected more, frankly.  I am disappointed.

Like I said, you actually attacked the non-UW group first, criticizing
non-UW written rules without a single constructive suggestion of
your own.  Lets look at "attempts to fix the ruleset", since you seem 
to be on that horse, and stated UW demands, again, keeping with the
facts:

The current Underworld Party was formed on September 5.  Since that 
time, its members have authored the following proposals:

1207, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1231, 1234, 1235, 1244,
1247, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1262, 1275, 1282, 1289, and 1292.

Of those, only 1211 and 1244 were were remotely concerned with the
voting rules, or their effects, 1244 was a built in scam, whether 
intentional or not.  Virtually everyone supported 1211, which had
the same intent as P 1154, which was rejected.

On the other hand, /dev/joe, Guy Fawkes, and  Malenkai have submitted
4 proposals which improve the voting system or its effects:

1220, 1230, 1232, and 1243

1220 and 1230 received unanimous Underworld opposition.  Your statement
"No one made any attempt to fix the ruleset" is a dishonest one, Matt,
and I have shown the facts that demonstrate that.  Moreover, I have
shown that the Underworld unanimously opposed two of these initiatives.
Check the ftp archive if you dispute my facts.
 
Lets dig further into attempts to clean up the voting rules.  On 
Sept 27, the following RFC was posted by /dev/joe:

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IdiotBoy wrote:
> I think a more reasonable proposal (assuming you don't INTEND to just annoy
> us) would be to change the requirements for a proposal to pass.

This is one of the most reasonable things anybody has publicly suggested
in this whole strike debate.

The next question to be asked is where to set the 2/3 requirement we have
now, if we want to change it.

Let's look at some possible voting schemes.  Would you want proposals that
get these votes to pass?:

       ????                 4/7 = 57.1%         3/5 = 60.0%
- -------------------   --------------------  -------------------
 6 YES, 5 NO: 54.5%                          7 YES, 4 NO: 63.6%
                       7 YES, 5 NO: 58.3%
 7 YES, 6 NO: 53.8%                          8 YES, 5 NO: 61.5%
                       8 YES, 6 NO: 57.1%    9 YES, 5 NO: 64.3%
 8 YES, 7 NO: 53.3%                          9 YES, 6 NO: 60.0%
 9 YES, 7 NO: 56.3%                         10 YES, 6 NO: 62.5%
 9 YES, 8 NO: 52.9%   10 YES, 7 NO: 58.8%   11 YES, 6 NO: 64.7%
10 YES, 8 NO: 55.6%                         11 YES, 7 NO: 61.1%
10 YES, 9 NO: 52.6%   11 YES, 8 NO: 57.9%   12 YES, 7 NO: 63.1%
11 YES, 9 NO: 55.0%                         12 YES, 8 NO: 60.0%  13,7=65.0%
11 YES, 10 NO: 52.4%  12 YES, 9 NO: 57.1%   13 YES, 8 NO: 61.9%
12 YES, 10 NO: 54.5%  13 YES, 9 NO: 59.1%   14 YES, 8 NO: 63.6%
13 YES, 10 NO: 56.5%                        14 YES, 9 NO: 60.9%  15,8=65.2%
13 YES, 11 NO: 54.2%  14 YES, 10 NO: 58.3%  15 YES, 9 NO: 62.5%

Consider the possibility of also repealing or changing the Tools rule that
allows extra votes to be bought.  These issues must be considered together.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one from the Underworld responded to the RFC.  The only responses
were demands for more money.  Matt seems to think that our rules have
problems.  Perhaps he, or the rest of the Underworld, could help us
improve them.  I'm finding it a little bit of a stretch that the
UW is sincere in cleaning up the voting rules in light of this evidence,
despite the rhetoric.  We've obviously been unsuccessful in writing
acceptable voting rules.  Work with us to improve them, then.  The fact
of the matter is that we have worked our butts off to clean up the rules,
do a grep for /dev/joe, Malenkai, ThinMan, Mohammed, and others.

On September 28, I sent the following message to a member of the 
Underworld:

> Thanks.  If I can help rewrite some of the voting rules, please let
> me know.

This was not responded to.  Underworld proposals which followed were
P 1289, etc, more demands for money, nothing to do with voting.

Lets look at what else the Underworld has said during this crisis:

> In any case, you seem to miss the point. You can overcome our current
> strategy, but we will come with others (e.g. we can flood you with
> proposals). The rules are open enough to let us damage the game, if not
> by voting no, then by other ways. Instead of going to war with us, you
> better off simply give us the power we want.

First thing that strikes me: "The rules are open enough to let us damage
the game, if not by voting no, then by other ways".  Look at the way
that sentence is worded.  A clear acknowledgement that "if not by voting
no" is known intent to damage the game.  At least in this member's
view, and perhaps others, there is some knowledge of the damaging 
effects.  P 1281 *would* be an appropriate response if this attitude
where known to be prevelant.  Perhaps this message is a mistake.
   
What power do you want?  You are again offering threats at more out-
of-the-spirit play.  I personally do not like to respond to terrorist
tactics such as "threats to damage the game" if we are not given "the
power we want".  The fact that there are player(s) who would make such
a threat is already damage to the game, and we are seeing its effects,
sadly.  The above is the most disheartening message I have seen since
joining this great game.

In summary, many players have discussed this issue amongst themselves.
This is not an attempt to summarise those views, in fact, these opinions
and facts are all my own, except where noted.  In any case, we debated
ramming P 1281 through, a tact of non-escalation, and other options.  I
have chosen to go with non-escalation, and have made a good faith effort
at detente by retracting P 1281.  I ask that the UW do the same by
retracting  P 1289, and the strong-arm threats accompaning it.

Then I, and I'm sure others, will work with you to improve the rules 
you dislike.  Perhaps we can make this game enjoyable again.  I am
attempting to improve the situation.  Will you?

Malenkai
Speaker

------------------------------

End of Ackanomic Digest V1 #267
*******************************